From the monthly archives: February 2011

Let’s see the future

When I think of see the future almost always I do it dreaming, being awake or asleep!

But when we see the future in conjunction with other people is good to be awake and be aware that the future is different for everyone.

For example, if you ask people about what is the role of “cloud” and SaaS in the future, opinions differ, both in terms of impact they can have both the ability to embrace as instruments of growth as a company.

But the future is thus causes discrepancies, much more than the past.

Companies that are recently in markets tend to embrace opportunities and dreams while businesses with some stability and a lot of responsibility contracted tend to remain agreed with maintaining the satisfaction.

“It’s a matter of changing mindset”.

A small company tends to focus on user needs and draws its services according to the reading that makes from these needs, while another company with a strong position on the market and based on specific products, tends to seek to keep this market supported on the experience of consumers/users.

This differentiation, despite being abusive, made me remember the HR pyramid thought by Gary Hamel that as on the base “obedience” and on top the “passion and the zeal”, in other words, when we walked towards the search for value and commitment.

I like this release, not because I understand that it characterizes a company by the placement developers assume, but because it helps to realize what the best time to accept the change is.

“My guess is that the most bruising skirmishes in the new millennium won’t be fought along the battle lines that separate one competitor, ecosystem or economic bloc from another. Rather, they will be fought along the lines that separate those who seek to defend the prerogatives, power and prestige of their bureaucratic caste from those who hope to build less structured, less tightly managed organizations that elicit and merit the very best that human beings have to give.” – Gary Hamel-” The Future of Management”

So when a company assumes the paternal role and uses the principles inherent in a school and is managed with the precious help of scrutiny she provokes obedience.

Even taking a step forward, companies can create environments where the work is very well seen and people are rewarded by doing very well, but there is no space for creativity.

In other circumstances and when developing the motivations of the collaborators organizations delegate responsibilities and increase levels of autonomy. Those are moments of intellectual development.

As employees of a company are committed with their activity, they will develop initiatives and see the problems as theirs without being exclusively concerned with a definition of functions.

It is this the time when creativity emerges in finding solutions to solve problems!

“New problems demand new principles. Put bluntly, there’s simply no way to build tomorrow’s essential organizational capabilities—resilience, innovation and employee engagement—atop the scaffolding of 20th century management principles.”- Gary Hamel

And for whom the work is not only intellectual satisfaction and where the words meaning, sense and purpose are crucial elements of personal development and of the company is high time to put the banner at the top of the mountain (pyramid).

Already having thought I had finished this article I read a text from Dibyendu De (@ Sparkinginsight on twitter), which concludes excellently my thoughts:

“The difference between the market share between Apple and Nokia lies the purpose of their business. While Nokia went into the present business as a radical breakthrough from their previous business of timber and rubber Apple grew out of a dream of their founder. The difference is so clear in their product offerings. Because Nokia “connects people” it constantly endeavors to connect better, which it does so well. Their whole technology is geared towards that. But Steve Jobs tries to live his childhood dream of connecting devices and make them mobile. This is what he tweeted today, “The day I was born songs were on records, phones were tied down, computers needed rooms and the web was fiction. Change the world. You can.” Apple lives a dream. Nokia lives a business of connecting people. What a difference dreams can make. Let’s dream.”

What do you think of this?

Design Thinking and Business.


To visualize a meeting between design thinkers and business people is not an easy task especially when we want the image conveys collaboration and good results.

When design thinkers are in their work, have an attitude of openness and seek empathy to feel their interlocutor but often we see interdisciplinary meetings or with people in the business area, they assume already know each other and what they think differently.

So what to do if you work within the same company and have different approaches to the same subjects?

According to Roger Martin in “The Design of Business” to become design thinkers we must develop the posture, the tools and experiences.

Posture is our perspective of the world and our role in it.

Tools are the models we use to organize our world and our thoughts.

Experiences are what built and developed our skills and sensibilities.

But why is it important to develop these three elements?

We know that in any workplace at any meeting, or anywhere where people exchange ideas and seek to evolve in one direction, they need a common language and a favorable environment for collaboration.

So to facilitate this communication process implies that I observe!

Design thinkers, when they are seeking to contemplate the effect on their relationships with the same eyes that use when they are in projects and seeking to understand them, i.e. having empathy with the interlocutors, and talking with them in a way that make echo within them, avoid unnecessary confrontation, differences with origin in the background of each one.

Design teams and business teams often come into conflict over change. Designers are seen as change agents seeking to push existing boundaries and develop new alternatives to the status quo. Businesspeople, on the other hand, are often deeply invested in the status quo and uncomfortable with shifting away from it without careful consideration and a high threshold of proof. Given this tension, one can choose to write the other party off or to turn the tools of the trade to figuring out what is behind their view.”

If we seek to understand the opinions that differ from our own opinion, instead of outright we reject it because we put a label (“He is an engineer …Is new…Isn’t here, etc.), we can understand the thinking of others and what they most valued or argue with more enthusiasm.

Now imagine, i.e. try to apply the abductive reasoning when you are in a process of work and ask yourself about how is the best to implement it.

Imagine the possible and desirable interactions!

If I need to create a new work process with other people, a group from the same company, what would be the best way to get energy or motivation and knowledge to reach a happy ending?

What would be the ideal process?

Without having to choose between A or B, what would be the best approach to co-create?

What would be the best way to create the appointment of other persons in the process?

What would be my difficulty in showing respect for the ideas of others and be trusted with my?

In design we use prototypes and test solutions for products, services and experiences.

How would be the design of a process?

How would be our prototype?

How would be the test?

It’s time to move from the possible to the verifiable and therefore it is important to get feedback from all stakeholders in the process to refine not neglecting the discipline of discussion that should be clear.

To search options is walking towards the best solution so it is important to listen to all team members.

With the prototype in hand what would be the best story to tell our work so that you had a happy ending?

What would be the next step for the story were a reality?

How do we test?

What we can explore more? That truth is that we lack? What you need to refine?

What do you think to test interactions in our workplace?

This text has sources in “Articles I’ve Written on Design Thinking” – Roger martin


Unleashing ideas and turn them into actions


When we accept that good ideas are not only at home does not mean that any idea or set of ideas can be useful.

Imagine that the leader assumes the role of fisherman of ideas to continue its mission. In doing so he knows that it is necessary that both the vessel and accoutrements are in good working order and are appropriate for the fishing.

I.e. if my boat is suitable for the calm seas I won’t fish in the seas of storms.

So it’s important to know where the sea is fished:

When it launches the network in protected sea

Lindegaard said “Personally, I believe a thinker is the most important piece because it requires quite an overview to become successful with an open innovation program having in mind that you need to deal with internal as well as external stakeholders on issues that are increasingly important for companies.”

This is the role of the master of the ship that has to be aware of the difficulties both internal and external to achieve success. It is good to remember that the calm that exists within an undertaking is subject to waves from outside.

When it launches the network in unknown sea …

When it launches the unknown sea network as in the case of many companies we can face the unexpected:

Ford has officially stirred up a mess of snakes by inviting consumers to submit their ideas on how to improve the company’s vehicles to its website at We’ve spent the better part of a day sifting through what the world has to say to Ford, and though we expected bucket loads of the web’s own brand of vitriol, so far the comments were largely constructive.”

It is a time (“so far”) in which things are fine but that clarifies the concerns or questions about the results. It is good to be alert!

When it launches the network in incubators…

Although incubators can migrate to situations of independence, there are many opportunities to open innovation in these seas.

Companies can be attentive to developments of these entrepreneurs and establish cooperation protocols.

While incubators used to be more general facilities, BusinessWeek says many of those that launched in the past few years are highly specialized. Often, their focus is on reviving a declining industry in the region where they are located, or on building off the expertise of those in that industry to innovate new products, services and concepts.”

When it launches the network in fertile sea

If the networks that are launched weren’t appropriate measure is very likely that the work of fishing bring good and less good fish.

The “fake” excess of ideas must be working and aligned with the company’s strategy. There is no room for cooling of fresh ideas. It is preferable to freeze them and use them later when appropriate.

Design is about communication, and the purity of a design can easily be compromised if there are too many ideas competing for attention.

Everyone has a different creative process, and there are many ways we all generate ideas. It’s the lifeblood of our profession, but it’s something you might want to be wary about.

Having too many ideas only becomes a problem if you are not able to process them clearly and without sentiment. Sometimes promising ideas have to be discarded because they do not meet the brief, sometimes you have to waste time on a bad idea to prove that it’s worthless.”

When it launches the network in known sea

Knowledge of ideas is fundamental so that they can be worked. Often we think we want to go to the sea and do not yet know the environment of the craft.

Companies tend to specialize, focusing people with specific expertise together, and that can create silos of information,”…”By opening up inside a company, you increase the flow of knowledge from one area to another. Medtronic began in cardiac pacemakers, but they are now developing devices that work in the brain. Lots of things learned in the cardiac division might be beneficial in the nervous system.”- Henry Chesbrough

When no launches of network … no production!


It was my intention not to identify a selection of ideas with something simple. Hope you left space for reflection.

I will appreciate your comments!

Tagged with:

A special recipe

In the same way that we get tired of a competent Cook, which makes our meals always with the same taste and for this reason, we looked for our own incompetence in being an artist in the kitchen, there may also be someone not competent that tired of competence wish to be a visionary in business.

“Take a look at the geek discussion boards and you’ll see an endless list of sharp-tongued critics, each angling to shoot down one idea or another. And then take a look at the companies that show up at the various pitch shows, and you’ll see one company after another pitching incremental improvements based on current assumptions.

The reason is simple: technologists know how to make things work.

When an engineer has a proven ability to ship stuff, to keep things humming and not crashing, it’s easy to fall into the trap of rejecting anything that hasn’t demonstrated that it can work, that hasn’t proven itself in the market.

Competence is not the same thing as imagination.” – Seth Godin

I’ve always been, and I’m, an apologist for that there is a difference between competence and qualification and that the latter does not necessarily represent the first. But rarely, I realize that the non competence can mean being free to imagine.

In a comment in my last post, Tim Kastelle (@timkastelle) says: ” I tend to agree with the people like Verganti when they say that we have to have enough vision to develop ground-breaking innovations.” I feel somewhat the same and I also agree with Ralph Ohr (@ralph_ohr) when he says (here too) that “Combining vision and customer integration seems to be a promising prerequisite for (radical) innovation.”

But alongside this to happen we need that the “elite” visionary go along people and find out what are the ingredients needed to design its future’s special sauce.

According Verganti the ingredients are there, waiting to be used:

“And with the diffusion of open innovation processes, ideas competitions, and the like, executives are increasingly exposed to a wealth of ideas.

What is in short supply, I’m afraid, are visionary thinkers who will be capable of making sense of this abundance of stimuli — visionaries who will build the arenas to unleash the power of ideas and transform them into actions.”

I think the construction of a vision is based on research and deep understanding of the environment where we intend to act and to transform ideas into action this visionary leadership requires a holding strong one-way.

The big picture of a company in the future can only be focused on consumers/users and we can’t think about the future by repeating the past.


When we relax our competence in organizations we are liberating our imagination to ask consumers/users.

“The trick is to see the future before he arrives,” – Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad, who also indicate three issues to rise about the future and the vision we have of it:

“1. What new types of customer benefit should we seek to provide in five, ten, or fifteen years?

2. What new competencies will we need to build or acquire to offer those benefits to customers?

3. How will we need to reconfigure the customer interface over the next several years?

The future is all about benefits, competencies and customer interface.

Visions that are as grandiose as they are poorly conceived deserve to be criticized, as do companies that seem to prefer rhetoric to action. All too often the Vision is no more than window dressing for a CEO’s ego driven acquisition binge. This is why the CEO alone should not be expected to create it. Any vision that is merely an extension of the CEO’s ego is Dangerous.

Find benefits it is to find meaning. Identify new skills is looking to the future. Reconfigure the interface is …?


Tell me what you think?


“The meaning of things is not in the things themselves, but in our attitude toward them.”-Antoine De Saint Exupery

It’s true! I did a search of information dominated by confirmation bias, but I tried to find opinions contrary and hope that you can imagine, from here, the construction of something with meaning.

I think the best way for a company to understand what people want is through a process of open innovation not neglecting hypotheses of co-creation and this is because typically businesses under such circumstances are closer to the consumers/users. But to give meaning to things that people might want the design is a great way.

Look at the attitudes of people with things and be able to transfer their experiences for a creative project cannot be within a room or combining information entered in the questionnaires.

This work of innovation by companies is not always easy. Eric von Hippel said in an interview to “Deloitte Review” that “They may well view the outside as a competitor; as a rival: “If we ask outsiders to help with our job, our managers may think that we are dispensable. Let’s not do that!” Similarly, marketing research people who look for unmet user needs via surveys and focus groups find a lot of their tools are at risk of becoming obsolete if users become the innovators. And internal patent attorneys who are told that open IP can be more useful than patents — well, let’s not even go there. [laughs].”

So the desire to seek out what is needed is a challenge that companies must meet and make clear to employees that they are required and that they play a key role in the new model.

The products and services that companies seek to launch tomorrow, apart from a few dissenting opinions, are built or projected based on information collected from consumers/users, through varied methods for different purposes, sometimes with meaning sometimes without this concern.

Henry Chesbrough in his book “Open Innovation Services” says: “Another aspect of advancing innovation in services is to change the role of customers in the innovation process. Instead of treating customers as passive consumers, many companies are now involving customers in the innovation process. In many cases, customers are actually co-creating new products and services.”

One of the problems that Chesbrough puts in this integration of customer experiences is the difficulty in transferring this tacit knowledge and therefore the result of the customer experience. Here I think that a design thinking approach can facilitate the transfer and simultaneously deliver meaning to service/product.

But there are good examples of work in this field, that here I refer, only just like a mark of possibility to consider paths that companies want to try:

Threadless succeeds by asking more than any modern retail company has ever asked of its customers — to design the products, to serve as the sales force, to become the employees. Nickell has pioneered a new kind of innovation. It doesn’t require huge research budgets or creative brilliance — just a willingness to keep looking outward.”

Embora pareçam lineares as vantagens duma maior abertura ao exterior por parte das empresas quer em relação à criação conjunta com outras empresas quer em relação aos seus clientes e fornecedores há quem diga que não é dessa forma que encontramos significado nas coisas, como parece ser o caso de:

Although it seem linear the advantages of a greater openness to the outside by firms relating the joint creation with other companies or with their customers and suppliers some say that isn’t so we find meaning in things, as seems to be the case of Roberto Verganti:

“And, what we learned is that actually radical innovation and meaning does not happen by using the imperatives we all know. Radical innovation and meaning doesn’t come from users. It’s not just a matter of having a lot of ideas.”

Should the meaning be on the things and not in our attitude toward them?

But Verganti also said: ” So, this is again another great example of design, because it’s not about, you know, this is not about styling. Actually, the graphics of the Nintendo are very simple. It’s not about technology. The technology inside a Nintendo Wii is much more simple, less complicated than the Microsoft Xbox and the Sony Playstation. It’s about a change in meaning, and it’s a radical change in meaning. These are things that people were not asking for, but when they saw them, they fell in love “

This truth of Nintendo’s example reminds me of Apple or the Ikea (see post) that also brought me questions about the role of consumers and my answer to these doubts is:

-It is important that people find meaning in their relationship with things.

-It is important that companies are in the relationship with its customers in a way to assign meaning to this relationship.

-It is important that organizations find meaning in their activity either toward the interior (employees) or towards the exterior.

-It is important that organizations contribute to a world with meaning.

” It’s well past time to begin imagining an organization of a radically different kind — one that takes a quantum leap beyond strategy, marketing, and finance into a novel galaxy of unexplored, untapped economic possibilities.

Here’s what I think that organization — call it the Meaning Organization — might look it. It’s a nod to — but a step beyond — Peter Senge’s learning organization. It’s built not just to learn (and then do “business”) but, more deeply, to redraw the boundaries of prosperity, by doing meaningful stuff that matters the most.”

Hence, the wisdom group. The wisdom group’s job would be, first and foremost, to ensure that the organization is creating value that’s enjoyed by all its key stakeholders — people, nature, the future, society. The group’s responsibilities would begin with measuring, monitoring, and managing that value — but end up with shepherding, guiding, and nurturing it. The wisdom group would make sure the company was doing stuff that matters to our great-great-great-grandkids, that ennobles us, that develops our better selves, and that honors the firm’s bigger purpose” – Umair Haque

As a collaborator the meaning of my work, as a consumer the meaning of my participation, while entrepreneur the meaning of my existence.

My apologies for an article so long!

The want, desire and the need

@ sonia_manchanda wrote: everyone dreams!

It is in dreams we often place to realize our desires when the myths don’t become reality.

“Accordingly, the individuals would represent their own wants and aspirations in the holy bosom of the fabricated authoritative gods and goddesses. Man’s imaginative faculty would manifest his basic needs and mundane desires by no better concept than that of transformation into other things or entities- literally referred to as ‘Metamorphosis’. In relation to needs, there was no better substitute for Metamorphosis since it could euphemize the rough measures man took to meet his needs and beautify the savage rites he carried to guarantee his survival. The same could be applied to his dreams and desires since it was only through the possibility of change and transformation that he could become what he yearned to become. Somaye Nouri Zenoz

Change the time, move the wills!

It is unrealistic to try to live without desires. Not worth even thinking about it, because desires are food or fuel for our creativity, are intrinsic motivation, give us pleasure, and pushing us to achieve our purposes.

The problem arises when our desires become in our needs. Suddenly we can’t satisfy our desires and desperation emerges and when this happens there is an imbalance.

In fact, we all have our own unique filters, including our culture, our experiences, trends, preferences and prejudices which only complicate the satisfaction of our desires.

Without major biases, we can say that the desire is a fundamental strength of human existence and the primary manifestation of sexual energy that is present in all human beings. Although the desire can have negative connotations because of the pressures of society or societies wishing to control the desire, this should be seen as positive and constructive.

It is the case with our desire for participation, commitment, productivity, happiness and well-being.

My biggest dream, desire, is to be … is … is … is … my vocation!

The greater desire becomes a necessity that should be satisfied and often feeds the entrepreneurs.

This desire can also be revealed as the need to fulfill a purpose and self realization without looking at the scale, and in this case, the desire takes the proportion of a mission and achieve this becomes almost a healthy obsession.

“Can we find a new model for sustainable economic growth that doesn’t just provide for needs, but makes dreams come true?”- Bruce Nussbaum

To translate these dreams on scenarios for the future and to formulate concrete plans for investment and real business it is a challenge now in India.

“Designers, especially humanitarian designers, usually try to meet people’s needs. In India, they are going to try and realize people’s dreams.


What does that mean? How is this going to happen?


What do you think of this?


Tagged with:

Quantity and quality…

“I see my role as helping public sector organisations understand what design thinking is and how best to exploit it for their individual needs. I don’t have a traditional ‘design background’ so I completely empathise with people trying to get their heads around design. It took me a while to really understand it but I think I’ve become pretty good at explaining it in plain English because that’s how I got people to explain it to me. It’s common sense. – Sean Miller

To understand the needs of others is essential to create empathy and for that happens:

It is necessary to know the context!

For actively involve people that a change affects, and not for change people, it is necessary to know the context where people operate.

We must work with them, side by side and make the best of their knowledge and experience.

It is necessary to play various roles in the context!

A judge role, where we do not judge whether it is right or wrong, before looking to see if it has meaning.

We need to play a development role, an ordering role and facilitation role of expressions or no expressions of the their interlocutor.

We need to play an attentive and active role in establishing connections and act like a prototype constructor.

It is necessary to identify the quantity and interpret the quality of the observation records!

“Although factors such as design and confidence cannot be reduced to numbers, they can be interpreted and understood. In fact, only through understanding can we make meaningful distinctions between alternative strategies or predict emotional responses of customers to a change of direction.” – Roger Martin

We must differentiate needs!

Understand how individuals think and discover their “cognitive maps”, i.e. their hidden needs.

The analysis that is behind hidden needs is simple. Asking questions can be ineffective and therefore requires new approaches drawn largely by anthropology and psychology, to discover people’s opinions and beliefs.

“This kind of approach requires completely new capabilities. The successful strategists of the future will have a holistic, empathetic understanding of customers and be able to convert somewhat murky insights into a creative business model that they can prototype and revise in real time. To do all that, they’ll have to be good communicators, comfortable with ambiguity and ready to abandon the quest for certain, single-point answers. “-Roger Martin

To understand the needs of others we must believe that this understanding is useful and can help us to solve problems and meet needs or desires.

Tagged with:

A wave that makes no sense!

After being called into question the usefulness of observation of consumer needs to develop innovation (see here), there are more two approaches tryng dispense consumer-centric research:

Apple doesn’t do consumer research


 User-Led Innovation Can’t Create Breakthroughs

Although in the first article there is a title that suggests abandonment from observing the behavior of consumers and potential consumers it is immediately corrected the message in the text. Apple designers do it but not in the traditional way.

In the second article there is a defense that the consumer-centric remark is not made and if it will be made does not produce anything significantly innovative!

We can read:

Users insights can’t predict future demand

The demand for something fundamentally new is completely unpredictable. Even the users themselves have no idea if they will like an entirely product before they start using it (and maybe, only after years of use). Demand for something new cannot be predicted.”

I can’t believe what would happen with Whirpool if this were so simple!


“Whirlpool washing machines in India was studying the market for the Whirl products in Northern India. In the northern part of India, most people consume buttermilk made out of curd.

To company managers’ surprise, many families used their washing machine for stirring curd and making buttermilk! The reason was simple: washing machines were cheaper than stirrers and more suitable. The company managers could not believe it!” 


I think using strong titles on articles has advantages to appeal to reading until to the discussion when puts interrogations, but doesn’t have any advantage when tends to universality and at the first assault resonates the untruth.

People are accustomed to look at the whole as the image they want to capture to subsequently incorporate as knowledge.

The external environment to a person or an organization has been set as the environment that includes all events and/or variables that take effect on the activities or results of a person or an organization.

Is this environment that we will bring all the wealth of information, necessary to update our knowledge and looking for a something new that satisfies the needs we have encountered. The observations that build plans, to identify this world, are replete with details that require attention and expertise.

This world includes data and behaviors, the latter being crucial to the survival of our relationship with others. And are the details (few) that make a difference, details that we have detected through observation and that often we feel the need to experiment.

However there is a long-standing distinction between experimentation and observation.

To experience you need to isolate, prepare and manipulate things hoping to produce useful evidence. To observe is to meet interesting details of things perceived in terms more or less natural, or, by extension, things perceived in the course of an experiment.

Look for an orange, and appreciate its color and shape it would be observe it. Extract the juice and apply reagents to measure acidity would perform an experiment.

If the aim of our observation is to know which feelings and emotions of people facing a particular stimulus, we don’t necessarily use experimentation. Just observe in situations identified with stimuli, or questioning people.

But even the observers don’t use declarative sentences always to report the results observed, this is not always reach desirable levels of empathy. To observe often design, take pictures, do audio or video recordings, etc.

The detail  is differentiating and is looking at it that we create conditions for innovation and meet the needs of people and build objects and services of desire.

Under the article mentioned above of Fastcompany we still read:

“If users can’t tell a company what to do, what should companies do instead? The best brands are all guided by a clear vision for the world, a unique set of values, and a culture that makes them truly unique and that no user insights could ever change.

They define their own rules.The vision must come first. This could come from the client, designers, a team, an organization, or a design leader. It needs to be clear and applied consistently over the project.”

I agree with almost everything in these two paragraphs less with “If users can’t tell a company what to do”! So at least they can contribute to it?

Do you want to comment!

 Suggest reading “ The role of design thinking in Firms…”

The purpose and intent of influence


It was over an hour of fun ideas and sharing in # ideachat on Saturday (12/2) promoted by Angela Dunn (@blogbrevity: ) whose report you can see here!

The following are some extracts from the report that served as inspiration to raise some questions about the value of ideas, that is:

-What can be good ideas?

Angela Dunn began (after presentations) debate with: “Let’s start with:

-What is an influential idea? “

The answers came naturally from all participants but I pulled out only two because they represent the touch points for achieving my purpose.

–      “@futurescape: RT @Jabaldaia: #ideachat A1 An idea that provokes change!” e

–      “@futurescape: RT @designthinkers: #ideachat Q1 Answer = when it’s contagious”

Normally if we had to consider an answer just would opt for one of these, but the fact that Syamant (@ futurescape) have done RT on two leads me to refine my answer and produce a new resulting from two:

–      “An idea that causes change and is contagious”, is an idea that influences.

Now imagine that I have an idea with these characteristics and someone asks me:

– “How to use a content strategy for expressing your ideas?”

-@ blogbrevity:

Among the many responses I withdraw the report that I gave and was shared:

@futurescape: and @nedkumar: RT @Jabaldaia: “underlining and repeating the main ideas and giving meaning to touch points.”

But if in fact I have an idea or a set of ideas that I want are implemented and that change behaviors or conditions of acceptance it has to be contagious and supported by a good story where outlines the qualities and insists on the advantages of acceptance.

It turns out that at some point of debate Arne van Oosterom (@ designthinkers) launched a good question:

-” @alf2021 @Jabaldaia I did not do any research… but sometimes bad ideas seem more influential/ contagious than good ideas ;-)”

What do you think of this?

For those who receive – will it be the forbidden fruit the most appetizing fruit?

For those who convince – infect a bad idea is a challenge to the intelligence of who does it?

I think that Arne has reason and we have many examples of ideas which were “sold” and which are authentic pictures of bad ideas. I refer to the ideas that lead to an excessive consumerism and ideas which lead to irreparable situations as was the case of certain financial products.

I think that good ideas are those that have as foundations a purpose (not a goal) and meaning (something that makes sense and brings value (ethical, moral, etc.) to whom delivery and who receives them. But of course not everyone thinks the same way and there are intelligent people who love to defend bad ideas.

How can we deal with the bad ideas?

I think I’ll accept help from Scott Berkun:

“Smart people, or at least those whose brains have good first gears, use their speed in thought to overpower others. They’ll jump between assumptions quickly, throwing out jargon, bits of logic, or rules of thumb at a rate of fire fast enough to cause most people to become rattled, and give in. When that doesn’t work, the arrogant or the pompous will throw in some belittlement and use whatever snide or manipulative tactics they have at their disposal to further discourage you from dissecting their ideas.

So your best defense starts by breaking an argument down into pieces. When they say “it’s obvious we need to execute plan A now.” You say, “hold on. You’re way ahead of me. For me to follow I need to break this down into pieces.” And without waiting for permission, you should go ahead and do so.”

In our chat we assume that all ideas (new) are good and that there are no bad ideas. However, if they arise, please combats the infection starting by yourself.

Have good ideas!

If we have a problem we have a necessity!

It is the need for solving problems so we get something better in certain situation. Mostly we solve the problem through a manual or handbook because this problem was identified and a solution was created to solve the problem.

In an article which I previously wrote I said: “I like to think that, in people, there are unmet needs (known but unresolved), needs not articulated (no solution because no definition of the problem) and hidden needs (unidentified problems and not defined). If in fact there is a significant difference between them, and I think yes, co-creation can indeed be the constructive dialogue that is necessary.”

Commenting about this article Wim Rampen (@wimrampen on twitter) commented: “@ Jabaldaia like your last post … you got me thinking on the three types of unmet needs … will get back to that. Thx “. This made me feel the need to switch back to the topic.

What is a necessity?

What approach can we make to a necessity?

When I speak of unmet needs (known but unresolved), mean that the solution can exist for a given context but is not satisfied in other contexts. A system for water distribution can be an example.

To simplify the dance of concepts I am assuming that the identification and definition of a need correspond to the identification and definition of a problem.

When we have needs not articulated (no solution because no definition of the problem), we have the feeling of necessity but unable to translate to start the path to the satisfaction of that need. 

In a great article written by Ralph Ohr we can find important viewpoints on this matter:

“An analytical understanding of innovation, such as the ‘jobs-to-be-done’ approach followed by Bettencourt, aims at finding solutions for defined needs and finding needs for defined solutions, respectively. This presumes that customer needs are basically accessible and can be predicted. In case of uncertainty, i.e. if needs are not (yet) well-defined, an interpretive approach seems to be more indicated for innovation. Needs evolve and change often unforeseeable with time due to cultural, technological, economical or environmental reasons. It’s a matter of ‘foresight’ to be able to envisage those evolutions, e.g. through participating in interpreting networks. By combining vision and empathy, anticipated needs can be addressed by innovative solutions.”

This evolution provided by Ralph Ohr often leads us to the hidden needs identification and eventually to the anticipation of their satisfaction if we work well the knowledge of those needs.

Oeveren Robbert van-Jan wrote in Designthinking: How to convert need into demand

“If you take a look at the different levels of knowledge, you see that traditional market research focuses on the things customers say or think; explicit knowledge. But to gain a deeper understanding, you should observe your customers behavior. Then you find that there are so many more things they are not able to express, simply because they are not aware they are doing things that were not intended that way. When was the last time you chained your bicycle to a fence or hung your jacket on a doorknob? Do you think that the doorknob was designed for that?”

Go truly meet the needs of people to seek to create something that satisfies is a path that seeks constant alert because like says Ralph-Ohr is scalable and at the same time a path where it is difficult to assess the effects of change as Tim brown says:

“So, what happens when we leave the world of tangibility and enter the abstract. Examining software design might be a good first stop. Here we see many of the same characteristics as in the tangible world (fast prototyping, iteration, reasonable transparency) that help mitigate against catastrophic failure but we also see some of the characteristics of the abstract and complex that signal potential danger. The network effects of modern software mean the ultimate impacts of our design can be hard to understand and imagine in advance. The relative ease of iteration and innovation makes change constant and the impact of that change hard to assess. As we move even further from the comfort of tangibility toward financial systems, social networks, health care systems and the like the predictability, evaluation and transparency of new designs become even more of a problem and the risks of dramatic failure increase.

As far as I can see there is little inherent in the design process that protects design thinkers from these same failures if we choose to tackle abstract, intangible questions such as services, systems and networks. Instead we might imagine how to apply the same rigor and discipline to the design process that has emerged from hundreds of years of practice in the tangible world. We might concentrate on how to make the process of the design of the intangible as transparent and open to observation as the design of the tangible. We might develop prototyping environments that allow us to learn through failure without catastrophic implications. We might accept that we need better mechanisms for criticism and feedback so that we begin to establish a body of knowledge about what works, and what does not, in the design of these things that don’t go ‘thud’ when we drop them.”

I think this differentiation or point of view about needs can help us to solve problems and create something more sustainable.

What do you think?


Tagged with: